Opinion
2:21-cv-08533-MCS (SPx)
01-09-2024
MG PREMIUM LTD, Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOES 1-20 d/b/a GOODPORN.TO, et al., Defendants.
AMENDED ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MARK C. SCARSI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions against Defendant Amrit Kumar, the relevant records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, (R. & R., ECF No. 210). The Court has engaged in de novo review of those portions of the report and recommendation to which Defendant has objected. (See Objections, ECF No. 232.) The Court finds that the Objections fail in light of Plaintiff's evidence. Broadly, Defendant complains of the time differences at issue in scheduling his deposition, the language barrier, his inability to use Veritext software, and Plaintiff counsel's refusal to produce proof of authorization to accept payment on behalf Plaintiff. (Id. at 3-13.) Yet Plaintiff noticed Defendant's deposition at times convenient to Defendant, (see R. & R. 2-4), and offered a Hindi translator to aid with any language barrier and technical support, (see id. at 6-7). Further, Defendant has no basis to request additional documentation to pay his court-ordered sanctions. Therefore, the Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), this Order amends and supersedes the December 22, 2023, order accepting the report and recommendation. (ECF No. 261.) The original order overlooked Defendant's objections to the report and recommendation. (See Objections.) The Court regrets this error.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions against Defendant Amrit Kumar, (Mot., ECF No. 134), is granted, Defendant Kumar's answer is stricken, and default be entered against Defendant Kumar.
IT IS SO ORDERED.